coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicants live in Izmir.
5.  On 7 June 1996 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated plots of land belonging to the applicants. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots of land and the relevant amount was paid to the applicants when the expropriation took place.
6.  Following the applicants’ request for increased compensation, on 22 June 1998 the Bornova Civil Court of First-instance awarded them additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate.
7.  On 8 December 1998 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment.
8.  On 27 July 1999 the Bornova Civil Court of First-instance awarded the applicants additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate.
9.  On 12 October 1999 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment.
10.  On 15 May 2000 the Bornova Civil Court of First-instance awarded the applicants additional compensation of 9,976,332,312 Turkish liras (TRL)[1] plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from 26 February 1998, the date on which the title deed to the land had been transferred to the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways in the land registry.
11.  On 11 September 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.
12.  On 13 August 2001 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways paid the applicants TRL 28,686,390,000[2].
5.  The applicants were born in 1971 and 1975 respectively and live in Istanbul.
6.  On 11 March 1996 the Küçükyalı Police Station was informed that a poster with a bomb had been hung over the Küçükyalı Bridge. Following their arrival at the bridge, the police found a cloth-poster of 2x1 metres on which it was written “We have and will demand the account of Gazi[1], MLKP[2]”, (Gazinin hesabını sorduk, soracağız, MLKP). According to the police report, the box looked as if it contained a bomb. However, it did not.
7.  On 12 March 1996 the first applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of her involvement in the hanging of the poster. On 19 March 1996 she was brought before the public prosecutor’s office at the Istanbul State Security Court and before the Istanbul State Security Court. The court remanded her in custody.
8.  On 12 June 1996 the second applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of his involvement in the above-mentioned incident. On 18 June 1996 he was brought to the public prosecutor’s office at the Istanbul State Security Court and before Istanbul the State Security Court. The court remanded him in custody.
9.  On 26 March 1996 and 20 June 1996 respectively, the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment with that court accusing the applicants of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, namely the MLKP. The public prosecutor requested that the applicants be convicted and sentenced under Article 169 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713.
10.  On 1 April 1996 the Istanbul State Security Court commenced the trial of the first applicant together with other co-accused.
11.  On an unspecified date, the first and second applicants’ case files were joined and they were tried before the Istanbul State Security Court along with four other suspects accused of the same offence.
12.  On 23 October 1997 the Istanbul State Security Court, relying on the statements given by the applicants and the other suspects to the police, the public prosecutor and the court, convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced them to three years and nine months’ imprisonment.
13.  Following a hearing held on 21 June 1999, the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants’ appeal and upheld the judgment of the Istanbul State Security Court. On 21 July 1999 the judgment of the Court of Cassation was deposited with the registry of the Istanbul State Security Court.
6.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Batman.
7.  On 7 February 1993 the applicant was taken into custody in Batman by police officers from the Batman Anti-Terrorist Branch and he was held in custody until 5 March 1993.
8.  On 5 March 1993 the Batman Criminal Court ordered the applicant’s remand in custody.
9.  On 6 April 1993 and on 10 October 1994 the Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed two different bills of indictment accusing the applicant of being a member of an illegal terrorist organization and undermining the integrity of the State.
10.  On 5 May 1993 the State Security Court commenced the trial against the applicant and twenty-one other suspects, and prolonged the applicant’s detention.
11.  On 1 December 1995, the State Security Court convicted the applicant under Article 125 of the Criminal Code, and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The charges had been brought under Articles 168 and 125 of the Criminal Code.
12.  Thereafter, the Court of cassation quashed the judgment three times, remitting it to the first-instance court, which reached the same conclusions as before:
–Court of Cassation decisions quashing the judgments on 9 July 1996, 31 January 2000 and 2 April 2001;
–the repetitive State Security Court decisions on 11 June 1999 (after numerous hearings), 28 September 2000 (after numerous hearings in the applicant’s absence) and 31 January 2002 (also after numerous hearings).
13.  On that latter date, the State Security Court convicted the applicant under Article 168/2 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment. He was released the same day.
14.  The applicant did not appeal against this judgment. On 7 February 2002 it became final.
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in the town of Shakhty, the Rostov Region.
5.  In 1987 the applicant took part in the emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. As a result the applicant suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions. In 1996 the applicant underwent medical examinations which established the link between the applicant’s poor health and his involvement in the Chernobyl events. The applicant was awarded compensation, to be paid monthly.
6.  On an unspecified date the applicant sued a local pension authority (Управление социальной защиты г. Шахты, “the authority”) for allegedly erroneous calculation of his monthly compensation and demanded arrears and damages.
7.  By judgment of 21 May 1999 the Shakhy Town Court of the Rostov Region granted the applicant’s claim and ordered the authority to recalculate his monthly compensation for the period between 14 May 1996 and 31 May 1999, to pay the applicant the arrears of RUR 134,442.46 in this respect and monthly compensation of RUR 4,547.75 with further indexation until any subsequent changes of legislation.
8.  The judgment of 21 May 1999 was not appealed against by the parties and came into force ten days later, on 31 May 1999.
9.  Some time thereafter the authority applied to the Town Court requesting to re-open the applicant’s case by reference to newly discovered evidence, such as his pay statements for twelve months preceding the disabling incident.
10.  On 10 July 2000 the Town Court granted the application and re-opened the proceedings.
11.  It appears that the defendant authority and the Town Court failed properly to notify the applicant of the re-opening proceedings and the decision of 10 July 2000.
12.  The applicant challenged the decision of 10 July 2000 by way of supervisory review by reference to this failure. His appeal also stated that the piece of evidence referred to by the authority could not be considered as newly discovered since it had been fully available to the Town Court during the first instance proceedings.
13.  On 9 November 2000 the Rostov Regional Court acting as a supervisory review instance set aside the decision of 10 July 2000. The court upheld the applicant’s arguments in full and by the same decision dismissed the authority’s arguments as unfounded.
14.  On 29 January 2001 the writ of execution in respect of the judgment of 21 May 1999 reached the baillifs and on 31 January 2001 they opened the enforcement proceedings in this connection.
15.  According to the Government, the authority complied with the judgment by five bank transfers, dated 29 March, 24 April, 30 May, 27 and 28 June 2002 respectively. As of 1 July 2002 the applicant has been in receipt of the monthly compensation of RUR 7,627.49, with no debts outstanding.
16.  According to the applicant, to date the judgment of 21 May 1999 has not been enforced in part relating to indexation of his monthly compensation until any subsequent changes in the legislation.
4.   The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Požega.
5.  On 20 June 1991 the applicant sustained an injury in a traffic accident caused by a certain A.P., member of the Yugoslav People’s Army (“the YPA”).
6.  On 10 August 1993 the applicant brought a civil action against the State in the Požega Municipal Court seeking non-pecuniary damages in the amount of 150,000 Croatian kunas (HRK).
7.  On 21 June 1995 the Požega Municipal Court partly ruled in the applicant’s favour by awarding her HRK 26,530. The State appealed.
8.  In August 1996 the Požega County Court (Županijski sud u Požegi) quashed the first instance judgment and remitted the case.
9.  In the resumed proceedings, on 6 February 1998 the Požega Municipal Court delivered an interim judgment (međupresuda) finding the State liable for the damage. It held that the State had taken over not only the rights and property of the former Yugoslavia, but also its obligations. The State appealed.
10.  On 9 July 1998 the Požega County Court reversed the interim judgment finding that the State was not liable for the damage as it was not a legal successor of the former Yugoslavia and had not taken over any liability for damages caused by members of the YPA.
11.   On 9 September 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law (revizija) with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) alleging that the County Court wrongly applied the substantive law.
12.  On 6 November 1999 the Amendments to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1999 Amendments”) entered into force.
13.  On 23 January 2002 the Supreme Court returned the case-file to the Požega Municipal Court with the instruction to stay the proceedings, pursuant to the above Act.
14.  On 10 May 2002 the Požega Municipal Court decided to stay the proceedings. On 18 July 2002 the Požega County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that decision.
15.  On 31 July 2003 the Act on the Liability of the Republic of Croatia for Damage Incurred in the Former Yugoslavia for which the Former Yugoslavia was Liable (“the 2003 Liability Act”) entered into force.
16.  Pursuant to the 2003 Liability Act, the proceedings resumed.
17.  On 3 September 2003 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant’s appeal on points of law, quashed the County Court judgment of 9 July 1998 and the Municipal Court’s judgment of 6 February 1998 and remitted the case to the first instance court.
18.  In the resumed proceedings, on 28 April 2004 the Municipal Court gave judgment partly accepting the applicant’s claim and awarded her HRK 101,000. The applicant appealed.
19.  On 15 February 2005 the County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first instance judgment, which thereby became final.
20.  Meanwhile, on 14 May 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint concerning the length of the proceedings. On 27 May 2004 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed the applicant’s complaint.
4.  The applicants were born in 1958 and 1953 respectively and live in Füzérkomlós, Hungary.
5.  On 20 October 1995 the applicants brought an action in trespass against their neighbours before the Miskolc District Court. The court held nine hearings between 14 February 1996 and 5 January 1998 and obtained an expert opinion. On 15 June 1998 the court partly accepted the applicants' claims.
6.  On appeal, on 4 February 1999 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court gave a partial decision. It upheld part of the first-instance decision, but quashed the remainder and remitted the case to the District Court. It appears that the applicants' repeated efforts to have the Regional Court's decision enforced were to no avail.
7.  In the resumed proceedings before the District Court, hearings took place on 12 July, 6 September, 4 October, 14 December 1999, 19 January and 9 March 2000. On 3 May 2000 the District Court ordered that the proceedings be stayed under section 137 § 1 (b) of the Code on Civil Procedure because the applicants failed to appear at the hearing scheduled for that date.
8.  On 8 September 2000 the applicants requested that the proceedings be continued.
9.  Meanwhile, on 23 April 1999 the applicants filed a petition for the review by the Supreme Court of the partial decision of 4 February 1999.
The Supreme Court appointed a legal-aid lawyer, who subsequently had to be replaced twice at the applicants' request.
On 30 November 2000 the Supreme Court eventually rejected the petition as inadmissible, without examining it on the merits, since the applicants had, despite warning, failed to contact the legal-aid lawyer and were therefore not properly represented before the Supreme Court.
10.  In the pending proceedings before the District Court, the applicants were repeatedly requested to clarify their claims at the hearings of 2 and 9 May 2001.
11.  At the applicants' request, on 10 July 2001 the District Court appointed a legal-aid lawyer.
12.  In its order of 30 November 2001 the District Court discontinued the proceedings in respect of the pending claims. On appeal, on 1 March 2002 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court quashed the first-instance order and remitted the file to the District Court.
13.  In the resumed proceedings, the applicants requested the District Court to hold a hearing in their absence because they felt that their presence at the previous hearings had been useless.
14.  At the hearing on 24 September 2003 the District Court dismissed the applicants' claims. In the absence of an appeal, this decision became final on 25 November 2003.
15.  In 1999 the representative of the building, in which the applicants lived, brought an action against them claiming overdue charges.
On 9 June 1999 the Miskolc District Court partly accepted the plaintiff's claims. On 16 December 1999 the Regional Court dismissed the applicants' appeal. On 11 April 2001 the Supreme Court's review bench refused to grant leave to appeal.
In similar proceedings, on 10 December 2001 the Sátoraljaújhely District Court partly accepted some further claims for overdue charges. On 4 April 2002 the Regional Court dismissed the applicants' appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in the Sakha (Yakutia) Republic of the Russian Federation.
5.  On 11 January and 14 December 1999 the Yakutsk Town Court granted the applicant’s claims against his former employer, a public company “Sakhaavialinii” (ОАО Авиакомпания «Сахаавиалинии», “the company”), and ordered payment of wage arrears and court fees.
6.  It appears that the judgments could not be enforced as the company went bankrupt. In July 2000 the court bailiffs forwarded the writs of execution to the company’s receiver.
7.  On an unspecified date the applicant sued the receiver. He claimed that the amounts outstanding should be adjusted for inflation.
8.  On 17 January 2003 the Neryungri Town Court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had failed to appear at the hearings of 27 December 2002 and 17 January 2003, despite having been duly notified thereof. The applicant did not appeal against that decision.
9.  In March 2004 the applicant for the second time sued the company’s receiver, asking to increase the amounts to take account of the inflation.
10.  On 5 May 2004 the Yakutsk Town Court dismissed his claim because the company had been declared bankrupt in 2003 and had ceased to exist. On 30 June 2004 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutia) Republic upheld the judgment on appeal.
11.  The applicant brought a civil action against the Russian Government. He sought to enforce a State-issued promissory note for the purchase of a Russian-made car or to recover the monetary value thereof.
12.  On 6 June 2000 the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow granted the applicant’s action and awarded him 63,000 Russian roubles (“RUR”, EUR 2,360). The judgment was not appealed against and it became final and enforceable.
13.  The applicant was issued with a writ of execution which he submitted to the court bailiffs’ service. On 26 April 2001 a bailiff of the 2nd Interdistrict Court Bailiffs’ Service of the Central Administrative District of Moscow refused to accept the writ because the law on budget for the year 2001 and the implementing Government regulation, introduced in December 2000, established that writs against the Treasury were to be submitted directly to the Federal Treasury.
14.  On 13 August 2001 the applicant sued the Neryungri Department of the Federal Treasury seeking enforcement of the judgment of 6 June 2000 and adjustment of the judgment debt for inflation. His claim was dismissed in the final instance on 5 December 2001 by the Supreme Court of the Sakha Republic as having no grounds in the domestic law.
15.  On 24 October 2001 the applicant also complained about the allegedly unlawful decision of the Moscow bailiff’s service to the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow. On 24 December 2002 the Moscow City Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint in the final instance. It found that the bailiff had acted lawfully. The applicant received a copy of the judgment on 19 July 2003.
16.  The judgment of 6 June 2000 remains unenforced to date.
4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in the town of Genichesk, the Kherson region, Ukraine.
5.  In 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Genicheskyi District Court against Mr S. (a private person) seeking recovery of a debt. On 20 August 1999 the court found for the applicant and ordered Mr S. to pay him UAH 6,975 (around 1,152 euros – “EUR”).
6.  On 30 August 1999 the Genicheskyi District Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 20 August 1999.
7.  According to the applicant, the judgment of 20 August 1999 has been enforced in part and he was paid UAH 3,000 (around EUR 496).
8.  In December 2000 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Genicheskyi District Court about the Bailiffs' Service's inactivity in respect of the enforcement of the judgment of 20 August 1999. On 16 January 2001 the court found for the applicant, declared the Bailiffs' Service's inactivity unlawful and ordered the immediate seizure of the property of Mr. S.
9.  In March 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Genicheskyi District Court against the Bailiffs' Service seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage allegedly caused by the failure of the Bailiffs' Service to enforce the judgments of 20 August 1999 and 16 January 2001.
10.  On 4 May 2001 the court found for the applicant and ordered the Bailiffs' Service to pay the applicant UAH 5,500 (EUR 909) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The court held that due to the failure of the Bailiffs' Service to immediately seize the property of Mr S., as it had been ordered by the judgment of 16 January 2001, the latter had sold a substantial part of his property. The court further held that the Bailiffs' Service had failed to sell the part of the debtor's property, which had been seized.
11.  On 25 May 2001 the Genicheskyi District Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 4 May 2001. On 20 November 2001 the Kherson Regional Department of Justice appointed the Novotroitskyi District Bailiffs' Service to be responsible for the enforcement of the aforementioned judgment.
12.  On 29 July 2002 the Novotroitskyi Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that the Genicheskyi Bailiffs' Service was being funded from the State Budget and it did not have its own assets suitable for seizure.
13.  On 14 June 2002 the Novotroitskyi Bailiffs' Service applied to the Genicheskyi District Court seeking the interpretation of the way in which the judgment of 4 May 2001 should be enforced. On 7 August 2002 the court refused this application, stating that the judgment needed no further interpretation or clarification.
14.  On 29 December 2002 the Novotroitskyi Bailiffs' Service discontinued the enforcement proceedings and returned the execution writ to the applicant on the grounds that the Genicheskyi Bailiffs' Service did not have its own assets and was financed by the Ministry of Justice.
15.  The applicant did not challenge the decision of the Novotroitskyi District Bailiffs' Service of 29 December 2002 before the domestic courts.
16.  The judgment of 4 May 2001 remains unenforced.
7.  The applicants were born in 1954 and 1960, respectively, and live in the city of Kirovograd, Ukraine.
8.  Until 1998 the applicants served as career officers in military unit A-425. In 1998, the applicants retired.
9.  Upon retirement, the applicants were entitled to different types of compensation and payments. As these entitlements went unpaid, they instituted proceedings in the Cherkassy Garrison Military Court against military unit A-0425 for their recovery.
10.  On 13 August 1998 the court found for Mr Svintitskiy and awarded him UAH 2,376.37[1].
11.  On 24 September 1998 the court found for Mr Goncharov and awarded him UAH 670[2].
12.  These court decisions were not appealed and came into force. The execution writs were sent to the Kirovograd Bailiffs' Service for enforcement.
13.  Between March 1999 and March 2000 the applicants lodged numerous complaints with the local departments of justice and defence and with the local prosecutor's office about the non-enforcement of the judgments in their favour.
14.  By letter of 6 September 1999, the head of the economic department of the Ministry of Defence informed the applicants that the judgments in their favour remained unenforced due to the lack of sufficient funding from the State Budget.
15.  By letter of 12 January 2000, the Kirovograd District Prosecutors' Office informed the Mr Svintitskiy that the judgment in his favour could not be enforced due to the lack of funds of the debtor, and the impossibility of attaching the debtor's property since it belonged to the State.
16.  On 1 August 2001 the judgment in favour of Mr Goncharov was enforced in full.
17.  On 17 September 2001 the judgment in favour of Mr Svintitskiy was enforced in full.
4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Dniprodzerzhynsk, Ukraine.
5.  On 27 October 2000 the Arbitration Court of the Dnipropetrovsk Region initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the State Company “Prydniprovskyi Khimichnyi Zavod” (the “PKZ”) – a State-owned enterprise.
6.  In 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Bagliyskyi District Court against the PKZ seeking recovery of salary arrears. On 9 August 2001 the court awarded the applicant UAH 2,201.58 (around 324 euros – “EUR”) in salary arrears and other payments.
7.  On 5 July 2004 the applicant was informed by a letter from the Bailiffs' Service that the judgment in her favour was not enforced due to a large number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and the bankruptcy proceedings initiated against it. The Bailiffs also informed her that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor was blocked by the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property of 29 November 2001.
8.  The judgment in the applicant's favour remains to a large extent unenforced (UAH 2,192.58 (EUR 325)), as only UAH 9.00 (around EUR 1.32) were paid to her.